24.07.2013 Views

Transitive verbs with non-accusative alternation in ... - Pluto Huji Ac Il

Transitive verbs with non-accusative alternation in ... - Pluto Huji Ac Il

Transitive verbs with non-accusative alternation in ... - Pluto Huji Ac Il

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

70<br />

Rivka Halevy<br />

(18) ba-tmuna ro’im ‘oto maxziq {‘et/be-} yada<br />

<strong>in</strong>-the-picture see-3 MASC.PL him hold<strong>in</strong>g {OM/<strong>in</strong>-} her-hand<br />

‘In the picture you can see him hold<strong>in</strong>g her hand’<br />

(19) ha-’axbarim kirsemu {'et/be-} mexitsat ha-'ets be-mešex šana<br />

the-mice gnawed {OM/<strong>in</strong>-} the-screen of-wood dur<strong>in</strong>g year<br />

‘The mice gnawed {Ø/at} the wood screen over the course of a<br />

year’<br />

F<strong>in</strong>ally, it is relevant to note that the dative morpheme is <strong>in</strong> many languages<br />

a marker of def<strong>in</strong>ite and animate O’s, as for example the Spanish a and the<br />

Semitic dative le- which has become <strong>in</strong> Neo-Aramaic a marker of the<br />

def<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>accusative</strong>, e.g. qatlā le – kills 3 FEM.SG to-him ‘she kills him’. On<br />

this account Hopper and Thompson (1980: 259) suggest that the arguments<br />

known to grammar as ‘Indirect Objects’ (as opposed to ‘obliques’ such as<br />

<strong>in</strong>strumentals or locatives), whether dative marked or not, should <strong>in</strong> fact be<br />

transitive O’s rather than what might be called ‘<strong>accusative</strong>’ O’s, s<strong>in</strong>ce they<br />

tend to be def<strong>in</strong>ite or highly <strong>in</strong>dividuated. 11<br />

2.2.2. Involvement and affectedness of the O entity<br />

In the prepositional <strong>alternation</strong> of the transitive <strong>verbs</strong> at issue, the O is<br />

marked <strong>in</strong> terms of affectedness. The affected object represents an<br />

<strong>in</strong>dependent entity, whose existence is not stipulated by the action; however<br />

the action has an impact upon it. The be-preposition marks the realization<br />

of the contact between the A and the O. The action is focused <strong>in</strong>tentionally<br />

and <strong>in</strong>tensively on the O. In the <strong>accusative</strong> construction, on the other hand,<br />

the object is unmarked <strong>in</strong> terms of affectedness, and is susceptible of<br />

denot<strong>in</strong>g an effected object, viz., a nom<strong>in</strong>al entity constitut<strong>in</strong>g the last<br />

element of the verbal process, as shown above <strong>in</strong> (17) and <strong>in</strong> (20) below.<br />

(20) hi’ qar’a {Ø/??be-} pisa mi-nismato šel ‘avigdor (Kerrett, p.61)<br />

she tore {Ø/??<strong>in</strong>-} piece of-his-soul of Avigdor<br />

‘She tore off a piece of Avigdor's soul’<br />

The DO pisa (‘piece’) is <strong>in</strong>separable from the concept of the verb. It<br />

functions as an <strong>in</strong>cremental theme (<strong>in</strong> the sense of Dowty 1991), i.e. it does<br />

not exist <strong>in</strong>dependently of the event, and, as advocated by Delbecque<br />

(1999a, 1999b, 2002), it cognitively acts as an <strong>in</strong>ternally bounded doma<strong>in</strong>.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!